From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.lendl@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8CD9A113B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:26:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A275EAD6
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:26:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:26:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E5E2647B10
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:26:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Stefan Lendl <s.lendl@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d015426a-83b7-40fa-a36d-a46e680efa2b@proxmox.com>
References: <20231108113535.3905405-1-s.lendl@proxmox.com>
 <20231108113535.3905405-2-s.lendl@proxmox.com>
 <d015426a-83b7-40fa-a36d-a46e680efa2b@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 14:26:14 +0100
Message-ID: <87v8a9hh8p.fsf@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.066 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-firewall 1/2] Manually construct guest
 config path
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 13:26:15 -0000


The issue arises because firewall depends on qemu-server but qemu-server
depends on SDN. So if I try to include firewall from SDN, it will not work.

I have looked at Firewall for quite some time now. Some functions in
Firewall.pm depend on QemuServer mainly for the parse_net function. I
tried to extract the functions that depend on QemuServer to another
package but I couldn't get the tests to pass.

Firewall.pm is using several global variables and I couldn't identify
what I missed.

Another option would be to split the SDN module to allow QemuServer to
depend only on a certain part of SDN to notify SDN about nic added to a
VM and VM start. I have not analyzed if it's possible to can split the
dependency cycle.

I don't see a clear path to implement this at this point and I will
focus on supporting Stefan Hanreich next week to finalize other aspects
of SDN for a successful release.

Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> writes:

> Am 08/11/2023 um 12:35 schrieb Stefan Lendl:
>> Remove require QemuConfig from Firewall.pm
>> We only use it to construct the guest config paths.
>> Fixes circular include when accessing Firewall::Aliases from
>> pve-network.
>>
>
> This won't work as now cfs_read_file only works by luck, if at all, as the
> cfs_read_file needs the cfs_register_file that happens in PVE::QemuServer
> so that the parser is actually available...
>
> I'd much rather see Firewall be split-up than doing broken hacks and
> switching from one of our saner interfaces to manual assembly.